Comments on Social Perspectives of Professional Communication
Regarding the Community aspect of the Social Constructionist approach, I find the cyclical nature of the belief systems to be very interesting. Shared beliefs within the community are assumed by the members of the community and that goes to “shape the discourse the community produces.” (Thralls et al.,128) However, the shape of the discourse, in turn, influences the shared beliefs within the community. Which came first? The chicken or the egg. The reason I find this interesting is because of the reliance within this view on the inclusive/exclusive “mind” of the community and how much importance is placed on that. The socialist nature of the single cohesive unit of the community seems limiting to me. However, here within the sphere of a more intelligent community one can see beyond just the cyclical nature of this to how it is progressive. The current beliefs in the community (which are influenced by the past discourse) then continue on to shape and expand the future discourse and so on, so forth.
I also find it interesting this idea of communicating within a community in order to regulate the consensus of the community’s “body of knowledge” (Thralls et al.,129). As opposed to views of communication which emphasis writing or speaking as communication to make public your feelings, beliefs, or experiences, the social constructionist view turns the communication into a way of consolidating everyone’s beliefs and ideas in order to have the average or the “normal” belief for the entire community. This can work well in the field of technical communication as the whole of the community of the business is able to come to “a corporate consensus” about the ideas, beliefs, or directions within certain professional documents. “Berkenkotter and Huckin…posit that a framework of accepted knowledge…provides essential intertextual support for a claim of scientific discovery.” (Thralls et al.,129) Outside of this professional or intellectual world, I consider the consolidation of beliefs and ideas to be a dangerous thing. With so many varying levels of intelligence, intellect, and values, having a community body of knowledge may not be as inclusive of certain important aspects of life. However, as the above quote states, the body of knowledge and the framework of beliefs within a professional community help to influence and guide that more specialized communication.
As Thralls and Blyler write, “ideological approach should be understood as an extension and elaboration of, rather than a major departure from…constructionist theory.” (Thralls et al.,131) I approve of the additional thought given to the way in which the common beliefs and ideals are created and merged into the body of the community thought. Since, as I touched on above, this hypothetical community of minds is not living within a completely socialist structure, there are variables and hierarchies of knowledge to take into consideration when studying approaches to communication. This ties in to Lay’s essay on feminist theory and thought, and the redefinition of technical writing based on many feminist ideals. How much can we say the “other” is represented within the community if their perceptions have not been valued equally in the research for the “shared” beliefs of the community?
The ideological approach section on Community also ties into earlier discussions about technical communication and writing education and how much should be taught towards utility. “Uncritically importing into the classroom the communication processes and practices of industry reproduces private corporate interesting, making students the tools of capitalist ideology.” (Thralls et al.,132) If our ideologies for education revolve around the students being prepared for the workforce, how much of that ideology is created by the community mind of those businesses? We cater the education towards being able to work and survive within those professional environments, however how much of that applies to different communities outside of the professional ones?
References
Lay, Mary M. “Feminist Theory and The Redefinition of Technical Communication.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 146-159. Print.
Thralls, Charlotte & Blyler, Nancy Roundy. “The Social Perspective and Professional Communication: Diversity and Directions in Research.” Central Works in Technical Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 125-145. Print.